Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-09
Ike tender in gold coin, and It had been re

| Ike tender IN gold coin, and IL had beel To
fused.n
Let ne sec, therefore, villa, that situation
| would be. II the taxpayer hal rendered gold
| and the Sinfe had refused to receive II, AND
| proceeded by suit against him 20 recover thf
| tax, then Ia his plea a tender he would have
| 60 aver that "he has always been rendy % pas
| the tax, and, before the commencement 81 ths
! action, rendered the amount OF it In gold coir
to the plalntiif and NOR brings he monSy int
court ready % BE- pad 70 ne plaintf." No plea
| Of tender Il good In an action NJ law unless II
| contains these ayermente, and unless the money
| be actually brought into court ~. ~ s------
.fquifds Ssqtnfur isgem. chanccry court
| would cease 10 be court Of equity II after a
| pHriy's acknowledging q debt by a tender Il
| should not follow the law and require tho
| money tondercd 10 be made available % thr
| creditor IN such manner as the Court, In view
| ~ all the circumstances, may direct. IL would
| ceaso 10 he q court OF equity II II should hold
| arbitrary that nero tender Is absolute pay
| ment. Therefore this court. IN every coupon
| case thut is brought on It's equity side, insert
| a clause In itg decree requiring the complain
| ant taxpayer who is protected from levy by u
| injunction 20 deliver % It's clerk the coupons
that were rendered in the payment OF taxes. %
| be deposited Ivy the clerk In national deposi-
tory with leave 10 The State % withdraw them
at lis pleasure. Why should We establish a
different rule for Cascs brought on the com
mOn-law side Of the courtg Tho proceeding on
the equity side is 10 eniOin tOrtous levy after
tender, while that on the cOmmon-law side f.
10 obtain redress for the tOrtOus levy after 10
has been actually made. The proceedings are
essentially the same in object, and the same
rule should be applied In both.
In admiralty the like practice obtains. We
have rule OF court providing that "A tender
iHfcr TGrfts shall be Of no avail on defence. Or
IN discharge Of costs. unless on suit brought
and before answer, plea. or claim FLED the
same tender is deposited in court 20 abide tho
order or decree 20 be made In the matter. In
short, no court will hold that the refusal Of Tho
tender forfeits the debt.
AHATTER or JUSTICE.
The rule which is now sought 10 be revoke
was entered, as matter OF course, withoui
argument, rs being In accordance with the set
tied practice Of the court alike In causes at law
in equity, and In admiralty IL is not only
matter OF settled practice, but is also one Of
essential justice. II Il not unreasonable to sup
pose that spurious coupons may by possibility
be used in tenders for taxes. The ropes.
OF the rule under consideration would
tend 10 encourage the cOuuterfeitnr
Of them. In view Of such cOntin-
gency the State has right in any Of these tres
pass suits 70 disproye II she can the genuine
ness of the particular coupons rendered by the
plaintiff in any particular suit. True, the onus
IS upon her 10 do this. but she ought 10 be al
lowed the opportunity Of disproying that If she
can, and think also 10 prove that the Identical
coupons have been rendered for other taxes.
The rule which we are now asked to revoke re-
qutres only that the coupons shall be deposited
WIN tue cicfk. ~ goes no fIrtner. II we should
revoke the rule and grant this motion We shoult
encourage the wrong 20 the State of using tn
same coupons as tender for an indefinite num-
Der OF dinerentta The rule cannot inter
fcre with the legal and honest use Of coupons
The repeal Of II would encourage and facilitate
All Illegal and dishonest use Of them.
"HoNEsT USE OF coUPoNs."
The suggestion that the Taxpayer suiny in
trcspnss for damage from a levy does not sue
20 recover debt paid wrOngfully but for q tort
and hat when suit Is commenced, the State
has all its taxes paid by sale OF his property.
and the coupons are set free is merely techni-
cal and but a statement Of but half Of the case.
II the state is made 10 pay back the money
made by the levy In damages she Is left with
out the tax and without the equivalent coupons
II this rule be repealed. The suit IN trespas-
against her il for the full value Of the plain-
tins property levied on, for costs aad for dam
ages at the pleasure Of jury; all on tho thco-
~ that The tax hns been paid. II tho coupons
arc not IN court In proof that the tax was pail
ny lender of them, and that the plantit
stnnds upon his tender, then IL ia not lgdiciallT
certain that the tax was discharged by the ten
der. fer non cOns'df that tender Of what pur-
ported 20 he coupons was Of coupons ga
iect. No injustice IL put upon the plaiu- |
rule requiring the presence Of the Goa |
pens III court cannot interfere vi 3. |
any honest use Of them. The effect Of repeal ri
II The rule would he 90 permit the repeated |
Nt OF iDt same coupons Tor paying utneffni |
taxes. SuITose coupons Of certain number
ana dates had been rendered by John Doe iu |
pay yment of his taxes, and on the county trca- |
urcr refusing them they had been tendcred bv |
lfiohald Roe in payment Of his taxes OF Ike
amount. Certainly the tender for Does taxes
bad been abandoned. Certainly Doc can no
longer stand on his tender. which l. yitiated by |
he subsequent use of the same coupons h. |
lender for ROe's taxes. Suppose further tina,
he treasurer lovies upon Does property. Can
Doe sue In trespass on tie ground tha'
lis taxes had been paidf Is he in con
iiion 10 stand upon his tender? n
le sues on the contention that his taxes
lad been paid iy the mere tender is ne
iot coniradiced by the fact that Roe's taze5
Vcie paid by tender Of the same coupons, an1
y lie legal .act that the coupons were inyalia.
or ihe tender Of moro thBn one set Of taxcs.'
q bis suit not based upon q faiseho0dg J. hr
Iot suggesting a falschOod 10 the cOurtf l.
lCt hls suit Itself essentially swindle in which
@ seeks 20 make the court n confederate.
Let not the court encourage or lend Itself to |
uch practices. lrepeat that do not see tha
ny honest use Of coupons can be interfered
With by "A rule requiring coupons that have
cen rendered for taxes to bo filed with the
lcrk in all cases where actions Of trespass ar
rought for loyies upon the property made AZ
Pr tender.
For these reasons am Of the opinion thar
be- motion 10 repeal the rule In question should
q denied.